[marden]

This provides us a suitably analogous situation to GWB's decision to invade Iraq. It illustrates ONE of the sound reasons for the invasion. There are many.

The argument is often given that Iraq wasn't a threat and that the culprit behind 9/11 was OBL and only he should have been targeted.

Well, here we have a madrassa. They were not bombing anyone there. It was a SCHOOL! Furthermore, OBL wasn't there and no one said they even SUSPECTED he was there! And now 80 are dead!

What kind of insanity is this???

The fact is that in a war you target threats in many forms and many stages of development. A madrassa used as a terrorist training camp could produce hundreds of operators who could slip into any of a hundred countries and begin recruiting or operations, so attacking this camp was an important blow struck in the War on Terror.

In the case of Iraq they have resources which, in the hands of terrorists or with the cooperation of terrorists and Saddam, could have been disastrous for the free world.

But now because of the invasion instead of three angry leaders with nuclear aspirations we only have two.

Less is better.

Instead of these 80 terrorists being sent to all corners of the Earth to foment jihad they've been sent to "Paradise." There are 80 less terrorists here.

Less is better.

Nearly 80 killed as Pakistan bombs madrassa

Khar, Pakistan

30 October 2006 09:37

Pakistani helicopter gunships on Monday destroyed an Islamic school used as an al-Qaeda-linked training camp near the Afghan border, killing nearly 80 militants, officials and witnesses said.

The strike targeting a madrassa near Khar, the main town in Bajaur tribal agency, was the biggest for months in the restive frontier region where many al-Qaeda and Taliban insurgents have sought sanctuary since 2001.

The bodies of 20 people wrapped in sheets were laid on the ground for funeral prayers near the site and locals were still pulling corpses from the rubble and putting them in sacks, an Agence France-Presse (AFP) correspondent said.

"The information that we are getting from the area is that the death toll is close to 80, a senior Pakistani security official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

A local Taliban commander known as Maulvi Liaqat, who ran the madrassa and was wanted by the authorities for sheltering insurgents, was among the dead, the official said.

Chief military spokesperson Major General Shaukat Sultan would not confirm the death toll but said up to 80 militants, including some foreigners, were inside the compound when the attack happened at around 5am local time.

"We had information about the presence of 70 to 80 miscreants who were engaging in militant training in this madrassa and we carried out an operation using gunship helicopters and precision weapons," Sultan said.

"Most of the compound was destroyed."

Nearly 80 killed as Pakistan bombs madrassa : Mail & Guardian Online

[Saetre]

Th article mentions that Prince Charles is heading to Pakistan to meet with Musharef and visit a madrassa down there. Brave man.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by marden 

This provides us a suitably analogous situation to GWB's decision to invade Iraq. It illustrates ONE of the sound reasons for the invasion. There are many.

There are many, many reasons. So many reasons. I can't even count the number of reasons. All I can say is that there are A LOT of reasons. Tons. A veritable myriad of plethoras of cornucopias of reasons.

[Rumor]

What exactly does this have to do with Dubya invading Iraq? This is in Pakistan and seems to have been dealt with by their government, not ours.

[Pendergast]

Anything similar becomes a justification.

Less details always makes it better.

An analysis with too many details is irrelevant, unless it points in the direction of the goal sought for. Anythong outside these parameters is garbage.

That is what I understand of the OP.

[BRussell]

You know how sometimes a little bit of food gets stuck between your teeth? That's yet another reason why we were right to invade Iraq. Or like how metal used to be really popular in the 1980s, and then grunge came along? Iraq.

[analogika]

Finally, some sense in this thread!

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You know how sometimes a little bit of food gets stuck between your teeth? That's yet another reason why we were right to invade Iraq. Or like how metal used to be really popular in the 1980s, and then grunge came along? Iraq.

I've been doing some research and all this Iraq trouble started around the time Tony Danza's Who's The Boss was axed from American television. This marked the beginning of the end IMHO.

[analogika]

Are you saying it's Alyssa Milano's fault???

TEH FOREING AGENT!

[hey!_Zeus]

WTF has the title of this thread got to do with anything. I just don't get the logic.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus 

logic

nonexistent

[itai195]

Post-and-Run!™

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by itai195 

Post-and-Run!™

It's more fun without him.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It's more fun without him.

The important thing is that he is back among us again. Woo-hoo.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

Th article mentions that Prince Charles is heading to Pakistan to meet with Musharef and visit a madrassa down there. Brave man.

I thought the same thing.

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

There are many, many reasons. So many reasons. I can't even count the number of reasons. All I can say is that there are A LOT of reasons. Tons. A veritable myriad of plethoras of cornucopias of reasons.

How does it feel to be right AND correct for a change? You are welcomed to join the right side.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

What exactly does this have to do with Dubya invading Iraq? This is in Pakistan and seems to have been dealt with by their government, not ours.

I'll try this again.

Millions of the Billion (+) Muslims around the globe want to conquer every nation on earth and impose a Sharia ruled government in each nation.

When they successfully conquer every other nation on earth it would be the USA against the world.

Hmmm, oh I get it. Once the rest of the world is ALL Muslim except the USA and we are fending off attack after attack then we can just bombard the entire world with nukes everywhere without worrying about who is and who isn't Muslim.

Is THAT why you are so serene?

[marden]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Finally, some sense in this thread!

I'll agree that WAS funny. Even though it has nothing to do with how radical Islamists would have taken advantage of a WMD attack on Israel.

[marden]

Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus 

WTF has the title of this thread got to do with anything. I just don't get the logic.

The War, Bush and America bashers have criticized Bush for going after other priorities and leaving bin Laden a fugitive on the run.

I maintain there was more to be gained by deposing Saddam, securing oil supplies and delivery, preventing a greater possible danger in the form of a series of dominoes that might have led to a global Holy War and the installation of a stable democracy in the heart of the M.E. where OBL has called the key battlefield in his plans for global domination...Iraq, rather than keeping those 100,000 men and support resources in Afghanistan chasing a ghost.

The madrassa was not where Osama bin Laden was hiding. And using the basher's logic this attack was irrelevant or counterproductive.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

nonexistent

Do you always criticize what you don't 'get?'

[marden]

Originally Posted by itai195 

Post-and-Run!™

Why does it matter to you?

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It's more fun without him.

Yup. I bet you like catching fish in a barrel, too.

[marden]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The important thing is that he is back among us again. Woo-hoo.

I love you too, SpaceMonkey!

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

Millions of the Billion (+) Muslims around the globe want to conquer every nation on earth and impose a Sharia ruled government in each nation.

Yeah. That's not true.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by marden 

I'll agree that WAS funny.

I wasn't laughing WITH you, Abe.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Yeah. That's not true.

As an Arab Christian, and victim of radical Islam during the Lebanese Civil War, I refuse to stand by and let the same thing happen to my adopted country, the United States. Even after 9/11, there are those who say we must "engage" our terrorist enemies, that we must "address their grievances." Their grievance is our freedom of religion. Their grievance is our democratic process. Islamic religious authorities and terrorist leaders repeatedly state that they will destroy the United States and Western civilization. Unless we take them at their word, and defend ourselves, they will succeed...

"BECAUSE THEY HATE"

A survivor of Islamic terror warns America

Brigitte Gabriel

http://americancongressfortruth.com/index.html

Suicide bombers follow Quran,
concludes Pentagon briefing

Tasked with pinpointing motivation, analysts find
terrorists 'rational actors' following 'holy book'

Posted: September 27, 2006
10:17 p.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

With suicide bombings spreading from Iraq to Afghanistan, the Pentagon has tasked intelligence analysts to pinpoint what's driving Muslim after Muslim to do the unthinkable.

Their preliminary finding is politically explosive: it's their "holy book" the Quran after all, according to intelligence briefings obtained by WND.

In public, the U.S. government has made an effort to avoid linking the terrorist threat to Islam and the Quran while dismissing suicide terrorists as crazed heretics who pervert Islamic teachings.

"The terrorists distort the idea of jihad into a call for violence and murder," the White House maintains in its recently released "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" report.

But internal Pentagon briefings show intelligence analysts have reached a wholly different conclusion after studying Islamic scripture and the backgrounds of suicide terrorists. They've found that most Muslim suicide bombers are in fact students of the Quran who are motivated by its violent commands – making them, as strange as it sounds to the West, "rational actors" on the Islamic stage.

In Islam, it is not how one lives one's life that guarantees spiritual salvation, but how one dies, according to the briefings. There are great advantages to becoming a martyr. Dying while fighting the infidels in the cause of Allah reserves a special place and honor in Paradise. And it earns special favor with Allah.

"Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor," concludes a recent Pentagon briefing paper titled, "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers."

Suicide for Allah a 'win-win'

"His actions provide a win-win scenario for himself, his family, his faith and his God," the document explains. "The bomber secures salvation and the pleasures of Paradise. He earns a degree of financial security and a place for his family in Paradise. He defends his faith and takes his place in a long line of martyrs to be memorialized as a valorous fighter.

"And finally, because of the manner of his death, he is assured that he will find favor with Allah," the briefing adds. "Against these considerations, the selfless sacrifice by the individual Muslim to destroy Islam's enemies becomes a suitable, feasible and acceptable course of action."

The briefing – produced by a little-known Pentagon intelligence unit called the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA – cites a number of passages from the Quran dealing with jihad, or "holy" warfare, martyrdom and Paradise, where "beautiful mansions" and "maidens" await martyr heroes. In preparation for attacks, suicide terrorists typically recite passages from six surahs, or chapters, of the Quran: Baqura (Surah 2), Al Imran (3), Anfal (8), Tawba (9), Rahman (55) and Asr (103).

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=52184

Which part is untrue?

[marden]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I wasn't laughing WITH you, Abe.

Nonetheless, you make me smile.

As did BRussell's sprout of humor.


marden

[badidea]

edit: nevermind

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by marden 

Brigitte Gabriel / American Congress For Truth


WorldNetDaily: Suicide bombers follow Quran, concludes Pentagon briefing

Which part is untrue?

Every part is untrue. What a weak analysis of the Quran, would have expected much better from a pentagon-affiliate intelligence unit. Remembers me though of a saying, that an example for paradoxy would be "Military intelligence".

1. God makes clear in the Quran that He created all humans, and that therefore killing humans is one of the gravest sins. The only exception to this big quranic rule to not kill other humans, is in cases of murderers or warriors during war.

2. Suicide is strictly forbidden in the Quran, because it means the killing of a human created by God, and because it means one doesn't trust in God anymore.

3. Jihad is not "Holy war", jihad is the struggle for the good, starts with the own soul, goes over to the family and neighbours, ie. loving the next like yourself, and includes the defense of society when attacked during war.

Taliesin

[ink]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Yeah. That's not true.

But Osama Bin Laden said so. We should bomb to [umm, not so sure the logic that goes here] just in case.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Every part is untrue. What a weak analysis of the Quran, would have expected much better from a pentagon-affiliate intelligence unit. Remembers me though of a saying, that an example for paradoxy would be "Military intelligence".

1. God makes clear in the Quran that He created all humans, and that therefore killing humans is one of the gravest sins. The only exception to this big quranic rule to not kill other humans, is in cases of murderers or warriors during war.

2. Suicide is strictly forbidden in the Quran, because it means the killing of a human created by God, and because it means one doesn't trust in God anymore.

3. Jihad is not "Holy war", jihad is the struggle for the good, starts with the own soul, goes over to the family and neighbours, ie. loving the next like yourself, and includes the defense of society when attacked during war.

Taliesin

I entirely agree with your above assessment of the Quran Tali, but what I don't understand is that if it is this cut and dry, why does the Quran have such difficulty in appealing to those supposedly acting on behalf of the God therein and of the author himself?

Why would figures like OBL and Ahmadinejad (actively involved in behavior significantly contrary to those Quranic tenets outlined above) enjoy immense support among those polled in primarily Muslim nations???

Certainly, prominent figures actively bastardizing Quranic principle would be found much more reprehensible among the average Muslim than Western leadership, yet just about every poll you can avail yourself of indicates quite the opposite in view.

[G Barnett]

Ew. Marden quoting the Worldnetdaily? Color me not surprised at all.

Yeah, that's a wonderfully unbiased source of info.

Not.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink 

But Osama Bin Laden said so. We should bomb to [umm, not so sure the logic that goes here] just in case.

Just cuz he can draw it don't meen he is smart.

First, all the bashers were saying there was only ONE REAL (insert the DIABOLICAL or DUBIOUS reason of choice) reason for the invasion. Then, the really bright members of the MSM began looking at the possibility that there MAY have been one OTHER motive behind the invasion that the Administration wasn't putting forth in the media.

Maybe one day this guy and others in the media will grow to the level of intelligence of MacNN posters.

Yes, dear readers, that was a compliment to you!

You already know there were more than one or two or three or four simultaneous reasons which made invasion the best of all available options on March 20, 2003.

This cartoon drawer don't git it. Maybe in a few years he will. But til then he is spreading HIS level of ignorance and influencing others who look to HIM for cues as to what is conventional wisdom.

Maybe they should call it conventional dumdom.

Our Three Step Plan in Iraq has always been:

1 Help create a representative government
2 Help create a military, law enforcement and infrastructure to support and perpetuate the nation
3 Leave

President Bush secured the continued existence of the USA by securing the oil delivery and supplies. He prevented worldwide economic chaos by so doing. He prevented any numbers of nations from becoming oil panicked. He prevented undue and unhealthy fluctuations in the investor markets by providing the assurance needed to support those billions of dollars (or more) of future transactions would NOT be affected by terrorism. He kept the prices of goods and services here reasonable by preventing gigantic spikes in gas prices. That kept people employed and goods and services being made available.

And while all of this was happening we were bitching at him.

And that's just the oil benefit!

[marden]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Every part is untrue. What a weak analysis of the Quran, would have expected much better from a pentagon-affiliate intelligence unit. Remembers me though of a saying, that an example for paradoxy would be "Military intelligence".

1. God makes clear in the Quran that He created all humans, and that therefore killing humans is one of the gravest sins. The only exception to this big quranic rule to not kill other humans, is in cases of murderers or warriors during war.

2. Suicide is strictly forbidden in the Quran, because it means the killing of a human created by God, and because it means one doesn't trust in God anymore.

3. Jihad is not "Holy war", jihad is the struggle for the good, starts with the own soul, goes over to the family and neighbours, ie. loving the next like yourself, and includes the defense of society when attacked during war.

Taliesin

I'll take that as exhibit A in the argument that you are not a terrorist because you can't seem to think like they do or even admit they see things in the way described, despite incontrovertible evidence that they do.

But it also invalidates your credentials to make anything more than academic interpretations on matters regarding the Koran or Islam, seeing as how the terrorists operate outside of your ability to comprehend.

Maybe MacNN should have a classified section. Here's an ad we might place:

Wanted: A Koranic scholar who is able to comment on current events from not only a scholarly point of view but also from the terrorist's perspective. No bashers, closet terrorists or useful idiots need apply.

[marden]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

Ew. Marden quoting the Worldnetdaily? Color me not surprised at all.

Yeah, that's a wonderfully unbiased source of info.

Not.

World Net Daily calls G Barnett's posts, "rational, reasonable and intelligent"

Yeah, I guess they must be pretty skewed.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by marden 

Hmmm, oh I get it. Once the rest of the world is ALL Muslim

Ah? I thought we to be concerned about extremist Muslims only?

except the USA and we are fending off attack after attack then we can just bombard the entire world with nukes everywhere without worrying about who is and who isn't Muslim.

Is THAT why you are so serene?

It's Hallowe'en tonight. Are you disguised as Bin Laden?

[ink]

Originally Posted by marden 

Bush secured the continued existence of the USA by securing the oil delivery and supplies. He prevented worldwide economic chaos by so doing. He prevented any numbers of nations from becoming oil panicked. He prevented undue and unhealthy fluctuations in the investor markets by providing the assurance needed to support those billions of dollars (or more) of future transactions would NOT be affected by terrorism. He kept the prices of goods and services here reasonable by preventing gigantic spikes in gas prices. That kept people employed and goods and services being made available.

Of course, you can't prove any of that, so we'll just have to take your word for it....

The world would have gone to hell in a handbasket if we hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003, right? It would be MUCH worse than it is now, it seems...

And while all of this was happening we were bitching at him.

And that's just the oil benefit!

Yeah... It's great to be able to look back on history and identify imaginary outcomes from hypothetical actions. Invasion was the only option, I'm sure of that now.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Pendergast 

Ah? I thought we to be concerned about extremist Muslims only?

At that point in time, after the extremists have done their job and the rest of the world has been conquered by the jihadists everyone will be either dhimmis or rank and file Muslims and the poster being addressed (was that you? I forget. ) would then be able to unleash his, hypothetically, diabolical plan to keep America safe from jihadist conquest.

Originally Posted by Pendergast

It's Hallowe'en tonight. Are you disguised as Bin Laden?

No, I'm going out as a terrorist supporting useful idiot. I'll be carrying a "**** Bush" sign and trick or treating for UNICEF.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink 

Of course, you can't prove any of that, so we'll just have to take your word for it....

The world would have gone to hell in a handbasket if we hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003, right? It would be MUCH worse than it is now, it seems...

Yeah... It's great to be able to look back on history and identify imaginary outcomes from hypothetical actions. Invasion was the only option, I'm sure of that now.

Let's take it point by point and see if it's JUST my word or if it's the facts that you refuse to accept:

1. Securing the oil delivery and supplies.

This is undeniable. Despite several attacks and attempts there has been no significant disruptions to the oil flowing from the region since we invaded. This is despite OBL's intent and instructions.


2. He prevented worldwide economic chaos by so doing.

This is proven. No economic chaos due to oil attacks or embargoes.


3. He prevented any numbers of nations from becoming oil panicked.

Self evident. No oil panicking nations, although the Chinese DID choose to buy Canadian tar sand deposits as the rising oil prices made processing these sands economically sensible.


4. He prevented undue and unhealthy fluctuations in the investor markets by providing the assurance needed to support those billions of dollars (or more) of future transactions would NOT be affected by terrorism.

Again. Inarguable.


5. He kept the prices of goods and services here reasonable by preventing gigantic spikes in gas prices.

Ditto.

6. That kept people employed and goods and services being made available.

Low unemployment and a strong economy and lower taxes.

All in all the decision to invade Iraq if ONLY based on the oil impact looks pretty cut and dried.

Here's something else to consider:

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 23 January 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the Cold War adversary of the United States—from seeking hegemony in the Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil," Carter proclaimed:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

Implementation

Because the United States did not have significant military capabilities in the Persian Gulf region at the time the Carter Doctrine was proclaimed, the doctrine was criticized for being not backed by sufficient force. The Carter administration began to build up the Rapid Deployment Force, which would eventually become CENTCOM. In the interim, the administration expanded the U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean.

Carter's successor, President Ronald Reagan, extended the policy in October 1981 with what is sometimes called the "Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine", which proclaimed that the United States would intervene to protect Saudi Arabia, whose security was threatened after the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War. Thus, while the Carter Doctrine warned away outside forces from the region, the Reagan Corollary pledged to secure internal stability. According to diplomat Howard Teicher, "with the enunciation of the Reagan Corollary, the policy ground work was laid for Operation Desert Storm."

Some analysts have argued that the implementation of the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Corollary also played a role in the outbreak of the 2003 Iraq War.

Carter Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by marden 

At that point in time, after the extremists have done their job and the rest of the world has been conquered by the jihadists everyone will be either dhimmis or rank and file Muslims and the poster being addressed (was that you? I forget. ) would then be able to unleash his, hypothetically, diabolical plan to keep America safe from jihadist conquest.

Glad you still have a sense of humor!

Now, wouldn't that be the goal of Muslim extremists to make certain all Muslims are extremists?

No, I'm going out as a terrorist supporting useful idiot. I'll be carrying a "**** Bush" sign and trick or treating for UNICEF.

Then don't talk to strangers. Especially the strange ones.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by marden 

No, I'm going out as a terrorist supporting useful idiot. I'll be carrying a "**** Bush" sign and trick or treating for UNICEF.

UNICEF? Are they part of the Jihadist Conspiracy now too?

[tie]

Originally Posted by marden 

Let's take it point by point and see if it's JUST my word or if it's the facts that you refuse to accept:

2. He prevented worldwide economic chaos by so doing.

3. He prevented any numbers of nations from becoming oil panicked.

4. He prevented undue and unhealthy fluctuations in the investor markets by providing the assurance needed to support those billions of dollars (or more) of future transactions would NOT be affected by terrorism.

5. He kept the prices of goods and services here reasonable by preventing gigantic spikes in gas prices.

Is this a joke? Are you seriously saying that if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, we'd have worldwide economic chaos? Gigantic spikes in gas prices?

All in all the decision to invade Iraq if ONLY based on the oil impact looks pretty cut and dried.

Maybe this whole post, and this whole thread, is a joke -- but just in case...

We are spending $2 trillion in Iraq, and thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. How can any sane person make an argument supporting an action without once mentioning its costs?

[marden]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

UNICEF? Are they part of the Jihadist Conspiracy now too?

UNICEF fails to hold Sudan accountable for the practice of slavery in southern Sudan and it's against the marketing of breast-milk substitutes in third world hospitals. This is a perfect example of misguided social activism to go along with misguided political ideology.

Isn't that the PERFECT costume?

[ink]

Originally Posted by tie 

Is this a joke? Are you seriously saying that if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, we'd have worldwide economic chaos? Gigantic spikes in gas prices?

Yeah, don't you remember the onerous gasoline prices and collapsing economy we had when that coward Clinton didn't invade.

It was awful!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by marden 

UNICEF fails to hold Sudan accountable for the practice of slavery in southern Sudan

I'm glad the U.S. is in there showing them how to get things done, then...

Oh, wait, it's not.

Assuming you are referring to UNICEF's not paying for slave repatriation, I'm not sure how that translates into not holding Sudan accountable. UNICEF is primarily a charitable foundation. They have to decide what is worthwhile to spend money on, in a cost/benefit sense.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink 

Yeah, don't you remember the onerous gasoline prices and collapsing economy we had when that coward Clinton didn't invade.

It was awful!

Yup. Just an attack waiting to happen. You didn't know it. But HE did. Did you know he was a Rhodes Scholar?

BTW, did you know he signed this act which made regime change in Iraq the official US policy?

The Iraq Liberation Act

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

Let's take it point by point and see if it's JUST my word or if it's the facts that you refuse to accept:
1. Securing the oil delivery and supplies.

This is undeniable. Despite several attacks and attempts there has been no significant disruptions to the oil flowing from the region since we invaded. This is despite OBL's intent and instructions.


2. He prevented worldwide economic chaos by so doing.

This is proven. No economic chaos due to oil attacks or embargoes.


3. He prevented any numbers of nations from becoming oil panicked.

Self evident. No oil panicking nations, although the Chinese DID choose to buy Canadian tar sand deposits as the rising oil prices made processing these sands economically sensible.


4. He prevented undue and unhealthy fluctuations in the investor markets by providing the assurance needed to support those billions of dollars (or more) of future transactions would NOT be affected by terrorism.

Again. Inarguable.


5. He kept the prices of goods and services here reasonable by preventing gigantic spikes in gas prices.

Ditto.

6. That kept people employed and goods and services being made available.

Low unemployment and a strong economy and lower taxes.

Don't forget:
7. Saved America and the world from alien invasion.
Inarguable. Neither America nor the world have been invaded by aliens since the invasion of Iraq.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Don't forget:
7. Saved America and the world from alien invasion.
Inarguable. Neither America nor the world have been invaded by aliens since the invasion of Iraq.

He's a great American.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Don't forget:
7. Saved America and the world from alien invasion.
Inarguable. Neither America nor the world have been invaded by aliens since the invasion of Iraq.

Well, as far as I know we've not had any credible alien threats posed against America. Terrorist threats on the other hand...

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Don't forget:
7. Saved America and the world from alien invasion.
Inarguable. Neither America nor the world have been invaded by aliens since the invasion of Iraq.

As soon as the aliens rack up an attack record on America that the Jihadists have and use their alien text book as the inspiration and menu for future attacks and global conquests as the Jihadists have then you'll have something.